GAHC010230812025 2026:GAU-AS:1971 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WA/10/2026 UCO BANK AND 2 ORS.

A BODY CORPORATE CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES (AQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKING) ACT, 1970 HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT 10, BTM SARANI, BRABOURNE, KOLKATTA-1, INDIA.

2: THE GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONNEL) UCO BANK UCO BANK HEAD OFFICE

10 BTM SARANI BRABOURNE KOLKATA-1 INDIA.

3: THE ZONAL OFFICER UCO BANK UCO BANK ZONAL OFFICE JORHAT T.N. SARMAH PATH NEHRU PARK JORHAT PIN-785001 ASSAM VERSUS SAILENDRA NATH KAKATI SON OF LATE LOKNATH KAKATI, RESIDENT OF HARICHARAN DAS PATH, VILLAGE BETKUCHI, NOONMATI, PO SAWKUCHI, GUWAHATI PIN 781034 DISTRICT KAMRUP M ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : Mostafa Mezbahur Zaman, MR. S CHAMARIA,MR A N SARMAH,MR M M ZAMAN Advocate for the Respondent : MR. B D KONWAR SR. ADV., MR H AGARWAL - B E F O R E -

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY For the Appellants : Mr. S Chamaria, Adv : Mr. A.N. Sarmah, Adv For the Respondents : Mr. B.D. Konwar, Sr. Adv Assisted by Mr. H. Agarwal, Adv Date on which judgment was reserved :

Date of pronouncement of judgment : 11.02.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : Yes Whether the judgment has been pronounced? : Yes J & O (O )

UDGMENT RDER RAL

(Arun Dev Choudhury, J)

1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and

order (oral) dated 01.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in

WP(C) No. 5939/2014, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent

was allowed, and the appellant bank was directed to release the

retirement (terminal) benefits to the writ petitioner.

2. The brief facts are that the respondent was initially appointed as a Clerk at UCO Bank in 1978. He was subsequently promoted to the Officer cadre.

3. In 2008, pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding, the respondent was removed from service by order dated 04.03.2008. The removal order was unsuccessfully challenged before this Court and attained its finality.

4. Thereafter, the respondent filed WP(C) No. 5939/2014, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the bank to release his terminal benefits, contending that the removal from service did not automatically disentitle him from receiving the superannuation benefits, otherwise due under the extant service regulations and settlements.

5. The bank resisted the writ petition primarily on the ground that, under Regulation 22 of the UCO Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulation, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation, 1995), removal from service entitles forfeiture of past service and, consequently, disqualification from pension.

6. It was contended that once the respondent was removed from service, his entire past service stood forfeited and he was not entitled to the pensionary benefits.

7. The learned Single Judge, relying on Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement and Regulation 22 of the Regulations, 1995, and also placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bank of Baroda Vs. S. K. Kool (dead) through Legal Representatives and Another reported in [(2014) 2 SCC 715] as well as the subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank and Another Vs. Vijay Kumar Handa (decided on 03.04.2025) held that the writ petitioner was entitled to superannuation benefits and accordingly allowed the aforesaid writ petition.

8. Aggrieved thereby, the bank has preferred the present appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Regulation 22 of the Regulations, 1995, clearly provides that removal from service entitles forfeiture of the entire past service and disqualifies the employee from pension.

10. It is contended that the statutory regulations must prevail and that the learned Single Judge erred in applying the ratios of S.K. Kool (supra), and Vijay Kumar Handa (supra), without appreciating that Clause 22 of the Regulation, 1995 disentitles an employee removed from